- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata applies to criminal proceedings, especially when findings of fact have been recorded by a criminal court in a prior adjudication on merits. The Court held that re-litigation of the same issue in subsequent criminal proceedings is barred, and continuing such proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908....
Read MoreThe Plaintiff had taken a shop on rent from the Defendant. Later, both parties entered into a sale agreement where the Plaintiff agreed to buy the same shop. At the time of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid part of the purchase amount and promised to pay the remaining balance when the official sale deed would be signed. However, after six months, the Defendant sold the shop to another person (a third party) for ₹20,000. In response, the Plaintiff filed a....
Read MoreBench: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge the final judgment of the Supreme Court itself. The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial finality, the doctrine of res judicata, and the structured remedies of review and curative petition provided under the Constitution. Facts of the Case The petitioners were retired government employees who were denied pensionary benefits under....
Read MoreIn R.K. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration (1962), R.K. Dalmia, a prominent businessman, was accused of publishing controversial and sharply critical articles in The Hindustan Times. These articles were said to contain disrespectful language against the government and allegations that were considered potentially harmful to public order and national security. As a result, Dalmia was charged by the Delhi Administration under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity between different groups, and under Section 124A for sedition. The....
Read MoreIn this case, Mr. Powell, the plaintiff, was a candidate for the headmaster position at a school. His application was forwarded by the school manager to the appointing authority, which later passed a resolution that basically confirmed Powell’s selection for the role. However, this decision was never officially communicated to him, and everything was still being handled internally. One of the board members overheard discussions about the final decision and informed Powell that he had been chosen. Thinking he had....
Read Morethe Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti Introduction This Supreme Court judgment deals with the interpretation of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, focusing on when the limitation period begins in suits for declaration. The Court clarified that limitation begins when the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff acquires “full knowledge” of the dispute. The judgment also reiterates the principle that a time-barred suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC,....
Read MoreBench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant judgment, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant in a child rape and murder case. The Court found grave procedural irregularities during the trial, including the illegal admission of confessional statements and lapses in the handling and proof of DNA evidence. The ruling reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving capital punishment. Indian Penal....
Read MoreIn this case, the land in Plot No. 765 in Mauza Bhaunjar, Ghaziabad, was divided into smaller plots by its co-owners as part of a residential housing scheme named “Chandrapuri Colony.” The plaintiffs, who were some of the people who bought these smaller plots, brought a legal suit claiming that Plot No. 19 was never meant to be sold because it was reserved for building a Dharmshala (a public rest house). However, they alleged that the plot was wrongly sold....
Read MoreIn this case, the accused, Aghnoo Nagesia, was charged with murdering four of his family members his aunt Ratni, her daughter Chamni, Chamni’s husband Somra, and their son Dilu. After committing the crime, he himself went to the police station and filed an FIR. In that FIR, he gave a detailed confession, stating how he killed them, which weapon he used, and where he had hidden their bodies. The Trial Court relied on this confession and convicted him under Section....
Read MoreIntroduction: The Supreme Court, in this case, interpreted Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, emphasizing that a judgment on admission can be passed even dehors (outside) the pleadings, and that such power can be exercised suo moto by the Court without a formal application. Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on admissions Order X Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Examination of parties Facts of the Case: The petitioner’s father was a tenant of the....
Read More
